Rising Costs Fuel a Partisan Senate Debate on Campaign Spending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES, Special to The New York Times

Published: April 23, 1990

WASHINGTON, April 22—
Amid the most insistent calls since Watergate to revamp the way political campaigns are paid for and run, the Senate is expected to begin debate on a campaign financing bill this week, tackling an issue seen as critical to each member's political survival.

The sense of urgency has risen along with costs, which have forced candidates for Federal office into an endless money chase, and in the aftermath of the savings and loan scandal, which has spawned an investigation of five Senators on charges of aiding a political benefactor. Even so, wide gaps remain between Republicans and Democrats. The main issue is limiting campaign spending by candidates.

Many lawmakers are reluctant to take up the issue. ''Everybody's for it in the abstract, and they want it to take effect next time,'' said Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia.

Democrats have generally favored ceilings on the amount of money candidates may spend on their campaigns. But many Republicans fear that spending ceilings would work to the advantage of incumbents, most of whom are Democrats. Two years ago, Republicans filibustered to kill a campaign spending bill because the measure included spending limits for candidates. At present there are no spending ceilings for Congressional races.

Trying to break the logjam, Democrats, including Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, the author of the bill the party's leaders want to bring to the floor, now support a flexible limit.

The idea, first raised last month by a committee of experts appointed by the majority leader, Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, and the minority leader, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, would restrict spending of funds that candidates raise outside their states, but allow unlimited spending of money raised from small contributions in their own states.

Sending a Signal

''We're trying to send a signal to Republicans,'' Mr. Boren said on Friday after a Democratic caucus in which he briefed his colleagues on his bill. ''I hope they'll look upon it as a signal.''

Mr. Boren said he would include the flexible spending limits in his bill, which provides a number of inducements. These include reduced rates for postage and broadcast advertising time for candidates who agree to spending limits that range from $950,000 to $5.5 million, depending on the voting age population in their state.

According to Common Cause, the nonpartisan public affairs group, the average amount spent by a victorious candidate in a Senatorial campaign was nearly $4 million in 1988, up from $610,000 in 1976.

The Democratic measure would also place ceilings, from $190,950 to $825,000, on the total a candidate could receive from political action committees. Currently, there is no limit on this amount. But individual political action committees may not give more than $5,000 to a candidate.

The lawmakers are also seeking to deal with television advertising. To reduce the number of negative commercials, Mr. Boren said he would include proposals by Senator John. C. Danforth, Republican of Missouri, to require that candidates appear on screen to acknowledge responsibility for their advertisements. Mr. Danforth's proposal would also grant free advertising time for commercials at least five minutes long. It has not been decided whether the Government would seek to compel television stations to grant the free time or whether the Government would pay for it.

This week, after Republicans caucused on the issue, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is drafting his party's bill, said 85 percent of his Republican colleagues opposed any form of spending limitation.

Mr. McConnell said the Republicans preferred to ban contributions from political action committees or to reduce them to $1,000 from the current $5,000, the amount an individual PAC can give to a candidate. Mr. McConnell's bill would also ban what he terms nonparty soft money, unregulated funds raised by unions and tax-exempt organizations that are used for voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote campaigns that benefit candidates for Federal office.

Looking at PAC's

''We're frustrated that Republicans aren't seen as being interested in reform,'' said a Republican Senate aide involved in the issue. ''We will be making an aggressive effort to look at PAC's and soft money, and to try to show that we're for different kind of reform, but still for reform.''

The Senate debate will be watched closely by the House, which is still weeks away from considering a bill. Negotiations by party leaders on a bipartisan measure have proceeded slowly and will be greatly affected by the Senate's action, Congressional staff members say.

Leaders of both parties say compromise will be difficult to achieve. Still, the Senate is under increased pressure to enact some kind of campaign overhaul. Campaign costs have risen in recent years, primarily because of the cost of television advertising.

Also, the Senate's ethics investigation of five members accused of improperly intervening with Federal bank regulators on behalf of Charles Keating Jr., a major contributor to their campaigns, has called attention to the link between campaign contributions and public policy decisions. Mr. Keating, former president of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., gave a total of more than $1 million to the five.

But if a desire to improve its tarnished image is shoving Congress toward changing the way campaigns are financed, lawmakers approach the subject warily, concerned that any changes will harm their re-election efforts. Incumbents won 84 percent of the Senate contests and 98 percent of House races in 1988.

''This is toughest type of bill that we have to deal with,'' said Representative Vic Fazio, a California Democrat. ''It's not just a matter of partisanship. It's also a matter of individual circumstances.''